Problem
The reporting of "Half Earth" is not bleak. Despite the title. The author says "emptying half the Earth of its humans wouldn't have to be imposed; it's happening anyway" (p. 4). We can challenge the accuracy of that claim. Banning certain activities may be the most cost effective way to reduce negative externalities.
i. Explain the type of land use prohibition that could have prevented the externalities evident in the urbanization photos.
ii. In the near future, biotechnology may slow down aging and thus prolong life. What will be the implication of said innovation with respect to the nature of legal impositions to regulate the population?
iii. Why should life in a green city be literally green and the infrastructure literally white?
iv. The way of life today in developed countries is drastically different from the way of life of our great-grandparents or great-grandparents (people who came to the majority 100-150 years ago). Why does this fact give us hope that Half Earth is not a quixotic proposition?